UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CLARENCE DENNIS, Plaintiff, 25-CV-8134 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION WIRELESS, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $405.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $55.00 administrative fee – or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See

, 1915. Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but his responses do not establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. Plaintiff states that he has no source of income, but he does not provide an answer to the question on the IFP application asking how he pays his living expenses. He also does not provide an answer to the question asking how much money he has in cash or in a bank account. Because Plaintiff has not completed the IFP application, the Court is unable to conclude that he is unable to pay the filing fees at this time. Accordingly, within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 25-CV-8134 (LTS), and address the deficiencies described above by answering all applicable questions and providing facts to establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. If the Court grants the amended IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See

(a)(1). No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed. The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States,

, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge